Evidence of Evolution

Are we actually going to go through this again? One side hands out libraries of evidence where the other uses Answers In Gensis as if it were a reliable source?

Again? Really?

 

"Darwinism" is, generally speaking, a misnomer, although it can be used to distinguish Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism for evolution from other theories like "genetic drift".

Not so far as I am aware, although no one believes it is necessarily the only way evolution can occur.

That's a really tricky question, someone more science-y than me should probably answer this lest I fail to phrase it properly.

Let's not ignore the elephants in the room; there's also:

C) Devotion to religious texts which must be reinterpreted or abandoned entirely if science is accepted

which is related to

D) Misinformation spread by figures of religious authority who, either due to ignorance or malice, communicate an absurd straw-man version of evolution which no one in their right mind would believe. Assuming this to be the "true" theory of evolution, those who hear this version rightly reject it, but wrongly fail to seek clarification as to the true nature of evolutionary science and understanding.

I'm not trying to turn this into a religion debate, but let's acknowledge that it's the case that religious devotion has at least a partial hand in some people's choosing to reject the possibility of evolution.

 

VadersLament,

Likewise and ditto.

 

If by "elephant in the room" you mean a fact no one is comfortable bringing up, I would have to disagree. While obviously I can't speak for all creationists, the majority I've read are upfront with their presuppositions.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I look at the data from the perspective of one who, because of compelling evidence, believes in the authenticity of the Scriptures. This is no different in principle from the one who looks at the Bible from an evolutionary perspective because they feel there is compelling evidence for that.

And it's not religious devotion or a fear of losing my faith that causes me to reject evolution, it's a devotion to truth.

EDIT: And I certainly don't mind engaging in discussions about findings such as this, because they add another piece of the puzzle to the picture of understanding, regardless of what your perspective is.

 

I'm confused what you mean by "looking at the Bible from an evolutionary perspective," as the Bible is not a factor in evolutionary study.

Unless you mean the evolution of belief, which is currently somewhat under discussion in the Atheism thread.

But most of the observable facts (aka truth) seem to side with evolution, being of the sort that make perfect sense if evolution is true, but little to no sense if Creationism is.

How do you reconcile the scientific evidence with strict Creationism while still being "devoted to truth"?

 

DorkmanScott,

"But most of the observable facts (aka truth) seem to side with evolution. I used to be religious myself and even I could see that."

In your humble opinion.
I was once an atheist/agnostic until I broke free of my "free-thinkers" dogma and examined the facts objectively.

My point: your "opinion".

 

As I said "seem", I myself acknowledged the general subjectivity of the statement. Your "point" is both common sense and irrelevant.

 

"Common sense"...ironic...

Especially when posting such bigoted and insulting "misinformation" as the following...

"D) Misinformation spread by figures of religious authority who, either due to ignorance or malice, communicate an absurd straw-man version of evolution which no one in their right mind would believe. Assuming this to be the "true" theory of evolution, those who hear this version rightly reject it, but wrongly fail to seek clarification as to the true nature of evolutionary science and understanding."

 

"irrelevant"...fatuous...

It was 'relevant' to displaying that your condescending comment as to your "religious" background was in fact..."irrelevant" to the discussion.

 

You sure do like to throw that "b" word around, don't you?

It is an observable fact that some people denounce a version of evolution wholly out of line with what evolutionary theory actually predicts or states. For example, people rejecting evolution because they've "never seen a monkey give birth to a human." Of course they have not seen such a thing, it is absurd and in no way what evolution teaches us. But they certainly got the idea that that was what evolution teaches from somewhere, if they're using it as a basis of rejection.

I didn't say it was all figures of religious authority, nor even most. But if even one person does it -- and they have -- then it is neither bigotry nor misinformation. It is a simple statement of fact that it happens.

 

We're all adults here, I assume you mean the word "bigotry." I use where it applies.
If a "religious" person were in here referring to atheists in identical hyperbole as you apparently feel carte blanche to speak of those who do not share your philosophical beliefs...you would certainly observe a form of prejudice.

It's not what you say...it's how you say it.

 

For you, the evidence was compelling enough for evolution that you view the evidence for the Bible in light of a belief in evolution. (Granted, there may be other things that changed the way you looked at the Bible, but for the sake of simplification and the topic at hand, I stuck with evolution.) For me, its the opposite. Based on my study for the evidence of the Bible, I see no reasonable way but to conclude that the creation was a literal 6 days, which necessarily influences my view of scientific evidence.

I have yet to come across any evidence that I cannot reconcile with my belief in the Bible. Likewise, I'm sure you have yet to come across any evidence for the Bible, as compelling as I think it is, that you cannot reconcile with your beliefs.

That's not to say that I dismiss things. There have been points made that have caused me to look for answers. But I always have found a satisfying answer. (And might I add for those interested, it's not just a mad dash to AiG and be done. It's several hours or even days of scouring over scientific sites, especially those supporting evolution.)

You are certainly free to form an opinion of me based on my beliefs, but I like to think of myself as a very reasonable person with an inquiring mind, eager to find answers I can defend, whether it be in the realm of science or the Scriptures.

EDIT: I might also add that I don't question an evolutionists excitement and sincerity with science, just their perspective. That is, unless they are purposefully misleading, a charge that is not unique to either parties.

 

I don't see the hyperbole at all, nor did I refer to all religious people. I referred to specific religious people doing a specific thing -- and if you are not one of them, you have no call to be acting offended, nor do any others. Nor does it have anything to do with philosophical beliefs, as atheists/agnostics who espoused and rejected an absurdist form of evolution which no one actually believes would fall equally into that heading; the thing is, I haven't seen any of them.

At any rate, this is well outside the scope of this thread, so let's move on.

Honestly, evolution had nothing to do with the Bible at any point. I was never a Young Earther. I believed in evolution as a theist and an atheist, and it really had no bearing at all on my opinion of the Bible.

The problem is that that's called "assuming the consequent". Reconciling evidence to a pre-conceive belief is not the same as adjusting beliefs in the light of evidence. In the former case, evidence is irrelevant, as you've already decided what to believe no matter what. Which is not what I would personally consider a "devotion to truth", but rather a devotion to a predetermined belief -- a devotion to religion, as I mentioned above.

Or, if you prefer, a devotion to scripture.

A devotion to truth requires reconciling beliefs with evidence, not the other way around.

You could have just stopped with "I have yet to come across any evidence for the Bible." It's not a matter of reconciling with beliefs, it's whether or not the evidence stands up to a certain level of scrutiny.

But let's be honest, by what you've said, you're more eager to find defenses for your answers, than answers to defend.

 

In science, if the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is thrown out. In religion, if the facts don't fit the theory, the facts are thrown out.

 

VadersLament,


If only it were so.

 

And I didn't mean to imply that evolution was what played a part. I just used it as a convenient label. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You would have a valid point if the only evidence we're talking about was scientific. I know that's the scope of this thread, and I know that's the focus of most of the participants, but to understand what I'm saying, you have to recognize I'm talking about more than just scientific evidence. My belief in the Scriptures is a direct result of a diligent study of evidence. It's not arbitrary. And it has never stopped. And it includes consideration of historical as well as scientific evidence, although I give internal evidence more weight than external. Therefore to imply that I do not honestly examine evidence and am not devoted to truth is false.

 

I think it's a valid point for ALL evidence. Otherwise what is the use of evidence at all?

And what kind of evidence would that be?

So in a very literal sense, you are admitting that you give subjective evidence more weight than objective evidence.

I'm not implying that, I am repeating what you're saying. You are devoted to your existing belief that the Bible is true and will find a way to "reconcile" any and all evidence to that belief. You are devoted to maintaining your existing belief at all costs.

Perhaps you consider that a devotion to truth, which is a belief the debate of which is outside the scope of the thread, but to call that "honestly examining evidence" is disingenuous. You cannot honestly examine evidence if you are looking for a way to make it match a foregone conclusion. Honestly examining evidence means examining the evidence on its own terms and drawing conclusions from it.

 

You would have a valid point if the only evidence we're talking about was scientific. I know that's the scope of this thread, and I know that's the focus of most of the participants, but to understand what I'm saying, you have to recognize I'm talking about more than just scientific evidence. My belief in the Scriptures is a direct result of a diligent study of evidence. It's not arbitrary. And it has never stopped. And it includes consideration of historical as well as scientific evidence, although I give internal evidence more weight than external. Therefore to imply that I do not honestly examine evidence and am not devoted to truth is false.

1) It doesn't mean you are right.

2) If you are right let's see it stand up to scrutiny. Don't bother posting here, go find a scientific forum and post all you evidence there and see what happens. If it holds up to scrutiny you may be on the road to becoming the most famous and valuable person EVER.

 

Vaders La ment
Are we actually going to go through this again? One side hands out libraries of evidence where the other uses Answers In Gensis as if it were a reliable source?

Again? Really?

You know what?

If you don't like the topic and the questions brought up don't post.

But don't come in here railing. It does you and your side of the argument no good.

edit

Vader La Ment
In science, if the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is thrown out

Oh if only that were so. As if scientific inquiry was immune to politics and grants.

 

VadersLament,

1) It doesn't mean you are right.

2) If you are right let's see it stand up to scrutiny. Don't bother posting here, go find a scientific forum and post all you evidence there and see what happens. If it holds up to scrutiny you may be on the road to becoming the most famous and valuable person EVER.

Ben Stein's documentary points out that in reality...it doesn't matter.

Or, think in terms of Galileo. The majority of the academics dismissed him.

 

Expelled Exposed.

The movie uses some arguments so thoroughly debunked that even Answers in Genesis tells theists not to use them anymore.

I'll say that again. Answers in Genesis debunks Creationist arguments in Expelled.

All that besides the fact that the accusations of "expulsion" are greatly exaggerated. It's not a film worth bringing up in even semi-serious discussion of the topic.

But, due to scientific rigor and repeatability, he was eventually vindicated. So where's the harm in posting evidence that one is so certain is true to a scientific community?

 

That is an excellent point about Galileo.

The appeal to authority and majoritarian view among some is a little disturbing.

That mindset is what got Galileo in trouble.

 

DorkmanScott,

"It's not a film worth bringing up in serious discussion of the topic."


Oh, it absolutely is worth seeing. Have you seen it?


AiG would have issues with it, because it is not a movie pushing "creationism" per se, it is addressing primarily the issue to discuss the results of science research, and the conclusions.

 

1) Even if I were rude about everything it does not make me wrong. 2 + 2 still = 4 even if I say it like a big jerk.

2) We have already been through this countless times and I am asking a legit question on just what is acceptable. If this is to be more of the same then why bother?

3) The scientific community is not immune to corruption but it is very good at self correction. The world revolves around correct research and results.

 

Based on the hypocrisy and other questionable behaviors of the filmmakers, it's not a film I'm interested in helping with my money.

Maybe I'll watch it on Netflix sometime.